I've had three distinct careers: biomedical scientist; FDA drug regulator; and scholar at the Hoover Institution, a think-tank at Stanford University. During the first of these, I worked on various aspects of gene expression and regulation in viruses and mammalian cells. I was the co-discoverer of a critical enzyme in the influenza (flu) virus. While at the FDA, I was the medical reviewer for the first genetically engineered drugs and thus instrumental in the rapid licensing of human insulin and human growth hormone. Thereafter, I was a special assistant to the FDA commissioner and the founding director of the FDA's Office of Biotechnology. Since coming to the Hoover Institution, I have become well known for both contributions to peer-reviewed scholarly journals and for articles and books that make science, medicine, and technology accessible to non-experts. I have written four books and about 2,000 articles. I appear regularly on various nationally syndicated radio programs. My most frequent topics include genetic engineering, pharmaceutical development, and the debunking of various manifestions of junk science.

Labeling Of Genetically Engineered Foods Is A Losing Proposition

As Joe Six-pack munches Fritos and popcorn during the opening games of the NFL season, does he care what variety of corn was used to make them? Should he? Should the government require labels that tell him?

Most rational people would say no. But California’s Proposition 37, which will appear on the state’s ballot in November, would create just such a requirement. Supporters claim it is a simple measure designed to provide useful information to consumers about so-called genetically engineered (“GE”) foods. It is not, and the deceptive measure fails every test, from science and economics to law and common sense.

A broad scientific consensus holds that modern techniques of genetic engineering are essentially an extension, or refinement, of the kinds of genetic modification that have long been used to enhance the foods we eat.

Except for wild berries and wild mushrooms, virtually all the fruits, vegetables and grains in our diet have been genetically improved by one technique or another – often as a result of seeds being irradiated or genes being moved from one species or genus to another in ways that do not occur in nature. But because genetic engineering is more precise and predictable, the technology is at least as safe as – and often safer than – the modification of food products in cruder, “conventional” ways. This superior technology is the target of Prop. 37.

The safety record of genetically engineered plants and foods derived from them is extraordinary. Even after the cultivation worldwide of more than 3 billion acres of genetically engineered crops (by more than 14 million farmers) and the consumption of more than 3 trillion servings of food by inhabitants of North America alone, there has not been a single ecosystem disrupted or a single confirmed adverse reaction.

The advantages are also remarkable. Every year, farmers planting genetically engineered varieties spray millions fewer gallons of chemical pesticides and substantially reduce topsoil erosion. In addition, many of these varieties are less susceptible to mold infection and have lower levels of fungal toxins, making them safer for consumers and livestock.

The mandatory labels required by Prop. 37 would convey none of this information. Instead, these labels would imply that the buyer needs to be warned of unspecified dangers. Compliance would also vastly inflate costs to everyone in the distribution chain, resulting in higher prices in grocery stores of up to $350-$400 a year for California families.

How can that be? Britain’s labeling law, touted early on by a senior regulator as “a question of choice, of consumer choice,” has had the opposite effect. Consumers naturally think that government mandated labels signal a cause for concern, so food producers, retailers and restaurant chains in Britain quickly rid their products of genetically engineered ingredients to avoid having to put “warning” labels on their foods.

In the United States, on the other hand, the Food and Drug Administration followed the science and declined to require special labeling for genetically engineered foods. The agency does require foods to be labeled if they raise questions related to nutrition or safe use — if, for example, they contain substances new to the food supply, allergens presented in an unusual or unexpected way (such as a peanut protein in wheat) or increased levels of toxins found normally in foods.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.